Mass/energy equivalence is based on the REST MASS of an object, not the moving mass. Want to do calculations for a fusion reactor? Use rest masses, not moving masses. Even if you were trying to say something about the effects of relative motion, adding "on Earth" in the sentence I quoted is meaningless because you've just used a roundabout way of saying that relative to Earth's reference frame, the mass of objects on Earth is their rest mass. If you were trying to say something about relative motion, you need TWO reference frames.
You're posts are so utterly scrambled and confused it's not even worth responding to them. You seem to think that you're expressing something meaningful, but you truly do sound like those psychotics I mentioned in my earlier post. This isn't picking nits: You're seeing the universe through a thick haze, and your powers of expression are even more limited than your vision. You're a fathomless quicksand bog of confusion.
You can't seriously be this stupid. Read above, ignorant. I clearly mentioned how the circumstances of Mass-Energy conservation operates in the proton I mentioned above. Absolute Rest Mass is a theoretical concept, not one which translates into reality. It makes assumption of an absolute frame of reference which stopped existing, since I lasted noticed since the early 1900s. Rest Mass, my dear ignorant, is only a CLOSED system concept. It assumes no energy is added or leaves the system it evaluates. However sadly for you, all systems are open in this real universe. No system escapes sharing energy with the outside environment in the real world. I said it all above, it is not my fault if you are not clever enough to understand or too stupid to even think in those terms. You probably learnt or googled some clever word yesterday and think you know everything today, this is your fallacy. I make no such assumptions about my own knowledge, I'm open to everything including my own shortcomings which I always apologized for.
But if you think my posts are not worth responding, why did you waste your own time? Why not let a fool like me preach my nonsense and simply ignore me as you probably do with most other things which can be truly idiotic by themselves. There is only reason for this, you probably got butthurt. Perhaps you should practice what you preach by yourself or even better try being consistent with your own intent, advice and words.
Rest mass is used only as a theoretical model NOT meant for practical measurements. The only extent it is used in practical measuring is as an assumption and not reality and even that assumption is only valid upto the limits it has been measured by us, not the complete 'truth' as I mentioned earlier.
You're falling into the trap of doing calculations with proper units? You're just missing the "truth" and the path to salvation. :awe:
Look, what do you define as proper units? Units which have been completely measured eg: 2 + 2 = 4 or as units which exist physically as a force of nature and circumstances measured through our devices.
This has come full circle. I will bring up my post here which started all this nitpicking on details.
The truth I speak of refers to a quality possessed by everything within this universe, the factor which causes that thing to exist in the first place. The nature of this 'truth' is that it will always elude physical description, but there is no limit to our observations of it and it is undeniable i.e. denying the existence of it will destroy the very foundation of the observation and the observers themselves
Nothing what either of us said contradicts the above, the truth I speak of cannot be known completely, but can be understood as only in succeeding continuous measurements. I ask you Jeff, what are proper units? They are what we measured and understood to the best of our abilities. What are our abilities then? They are the devices which lets us understand this world in increasing accuracy.
Jeff, do you think that measures of real life phenomenon can ever stop at a point when it becomes completely known? No, it cannot. The truth can never be known in the complete sense. Even your proper units are 'proper' only upto the last decimal place they have been measured till. Beyond that, you will need a more accurate device to measure it. My point here is that there is always a limitation to our measurement. This was acknowledged by itself through the Heisenberg principle. Nothing can never be known to its totality until you get a sort of theory of everything which can be M string theory. But even then string theory has its own limitations which I mentioned as this:
String theory : Strings themselves are defined as geometric ideals in string theory. They cannot be broken down further into anything meaningful. So in a sense, all of our understanding of mass-energy stops with them. So in essence if mass-energy are made of strings, what are strings made of? I think the answer is even if we find something below strings, we will be further on left holding the question what composes particles smaller than strings. In the perspective of the question I asked earlier (what is the most fundamental form of mass-energy) , the truth is we will never know, but that shouldn't deter us from seeking this 'truth' further and further. Remember while the complete nature of this 'truth' can never be known, there is no good reason to stop our efforts at observing it.
Note here: Nothing I say now contradicts anything I said in the previous post. If I did, I will be the first to admit my own mistake. But it doesn't at all. Everyone is prone to mistakes. Remember while I said the complete truth cannot be known, I also stated there is no good reason or any reason at all ever to stop searching for it. We can do this 'search' only in terms of more and more advanced (measurement) devices, each of them built on a greater truth (i.e in terms of accuracy and conceptualization) So please let go of the illusion of 'real' units. Accuracy at this point of time only extends in mental and computational mathematics and even that can have severe flaws. In the real world, all we have are approximations, the complete absolute 'truth' can never be known by itself. Again nothing I said before contradicts anything I say now.
Dear Jeff, it is said the devil lies in the details. It is this same devil which can stop someone from going beyond them and discover the theory of objective. Nothing I said is nonscientific here.
You're posts are so utterly scrambled and confused it's not even worth responding to them. You seem to think that you're expressing something meaningful, but you truly do sound like those psychotics I mentioned in my earlier post. This isn't picking nits: You're seeing the universe through a thick haze, and your powers of expression are even more limited than your vision. You're a fathomless quicksand bog of confusion.
No, I'm seeing the universe as exactly it is. You are the one hiding beyond the laurels of men before you. You see ignorant, the path to the more truthful world usually isn't what others have walked upon. I'm not psychotic, instead it is you who is closeminded and heavily biased. Remember this stupid, you will never get the concept of the higher reality unless you stop walking well beaten paths of men far greater than you. Unless you learn to 'unlearn' your own prejudices, you most probably will never be able to grasp the higher sense of existence. The humans who have achieved this did so exactly this way, they taught themselves to not see things the way their predecessor did, they taught themselves to let go of their irrelevant prejudices which clouded them from thinking the way they ultimately did, they learnt to question each and everything until they were satisfied by themselves and not by the judgment of strangers and most important of all, they had the courage to assert that their way of thinking was better than one before.
These are none of the traits I see in you, shira and I suggest you get working on them as soon as you get over this butthurt.